A Climactic Ending

Through the month of March, I managed to write 3 short essays on the major changes in Motion Pictures during the last decade of the twentieth century; it takes less than 10 minutes to read.  First, the over saturation of satire set the stage for post-truth realities in the 21st century.  Second, Web 2.0 brought life to a Truman Show way of life for all, the blueprint for our contemporary echo chambers and the death knell to the theater experience — as it stands now the majority of moviegoers in 2017 are over age 50.  Third, the extension of viewing times exceeded the matinee marathon and binge-watching bloated audience appetite for all-you-can-eat storytelling.  Read all about it on Medium:

You Should (Re)Watch 1990’s Bonfire of the Vanities

YouTube Killed the Movie Star: From Laces Out to Get Out

The Fat Lady Sings: this Completes the Trilogy, Not the Saga

 

One thought on “A Climactic Ending”

  1. In response to Variety magazine’s recent article entitled: “Was Christopher Nolan Right About the VOD-in-30-Days Revolution?” by Owen Gleiberman —

    The bias among Film buffs against the VOD / small screen / streaming movement is founded on the old biases of the golden age in film. “Straight to video” used to be seen as a pejorative phrase and was used to describe movies that were slapped to gather as a cash-grab or couldn’t cut it in a theater, the B-Movie, the bizarre sequel, the no-name casting, the cheap production.

    BUT, in today’s business this does not hold the same meaning. VOD has bigger budgets, talent, and often now better writing and even production. HBO’s True Detective and WestWorld are just 2 examples, and Netflix is ramping up. The new experience of binge-watching allows for long-form movies in the 10-100s of hours range that could not be experienced in a theater as feasibly. I just wrote about this in an essay comparing the mega-movie to the mega-novel (linked above).

    Nolan is still holding onto the framing tips film schools used to drill into youth about tight shots that can be easily edited for your future movie on TV audience, which is like formatting your website to appear similarly pleasant on a smartphone, to tablet, to huge desktop monitor display. Nolan likes the wide shots that can’t be reduced so easily, and pan-and-zoom technology is a ridiculous substitute.

    Will audiences watch movies in similar ways? This is what frightens the artsy filmmakers eve deeper than the technological limits. This is what will cause more of a schism in the industry. How important is it to simulate an audience atmosphere? I don’t know about you, but don’t the best movies help you forget about the audience, unless you’re distracted by the blaring speaker system booming through the walls of the next theater.

Leave a Reply